Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

  • THHuxleynew


    Obsessive might fit you and Ascoli both, but in different ways, but IMHO Ascoli65 is irrational on this topic at least, where as you are not.

    Yes, I am obsessive in the sense that I do not like to see lack of clarity when clarity is easily possible - and will continue forever to correct obviously false statements (even when it is clearly a Sysyphean task). It makes me a bad politician!


    However, unlike some, when the two sides have made their pitch and the difference in views is clearly understood: I do not go on trying to change other people's minds. So it is quite a positive obsession.

  • Ascoli is quite rational. This is obvious.


    It is hard to overstate how much the intellectual and argumentative style Ascoli and THH display in their posts is typical of normal discourse in everyday professional academic science. This style is not respected here and that is a shame.


    People are free to respectfully disagree with these two. That happens here to some extent but too often they are belittled and threatened for their sincere and clearly reasoned beliefs. If either of them ends up leaving this site it will say much more about the blinkered nature of the LENR community than about them.

  • If either of them ends up leaving this site it will say much more about the blinkered nature of the LENR community than about them.

    Thank you for your comment Bruce. I am familiar with academic discourse, which is often of a petty and dismissive nature. This is a forum, not the SCR at Magdalen college, and we apply different codes of behaviour precisely because of that.

  • Thank you for your comment Bruce. I am familiar with academic discourse, which is often of a petty and dismissive nature. This is a forum, not the SCR at Magdalen college, and we apply different codes of behaviour precisely because of that.

    I meant formal academic discourse ... receiving referee's comments and so on.


    Neither THH nor Ascoli are petty or dismissive, as you well know.

  • Ascoli65 and THHuxleynew


    Continually insisting that you are right, everybody else is wrong and that nobody has answered your allegations correctly is a game that quite a lot of the forum are tired of. I have had complaints about your obsessive and borderline irrational behaviour from both inside and outside the forum membership. The forum team are pondering further action.

    Everyone here says he is right. Should I say I'm wrong?


    I've been prevented to post in any other thread and invited to post only in this thread. That's okay. Better than nothing. Am I now also prevented to express my own opinion and defend it?


    I was illustrating to THH my reasons about the mistakes in the Simplicity Paper (1). We were quietly discussing, when suddenly JR jumped in (2) by saying that F&P experiment "was irrefutable" and THH arguments were "nonsense". Who is actually claiming to be always right?


    Yesterday, Curbina wrote (3): "Regarding the discussion about certain members and their intentions, I remind our community they are free to block anyone they dislike. The staff doesn’t encourage it, but is your right.

    The forum staff asks our members to maintain a polite communication, one can deeply disagree without needing to resort to insults, mockery or derision. Let the weight of the arguments decide which vision prevails."


    Okay, I perfectly agree with this call. I subscribe every single word in it and hope this is real wish of the entire LF staff.


    In this spirit, I've explained my arguments about the foam and arrow issues. They are only based on original documents coming, directly or indirectly, from F&P.


    JR wrote in its recent "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" (4): "Unfortunately, this is an old VHS video, and it is a copy of a copy, so the quality is degraded and the picture is blurry, but you can still see when the boil off events begin and end."


    Therefore, he has the chance to end this controversy by just indicating "when the boil off events begin and end", instead of saying that my or THH's arguments are nonsense.


    This would be a correct and rational answer in a scientific confrontation, in which "the weight of the arguments decide which vision prevails", as Curbina wrote yesterday.


    (1) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    (2) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    (3) RE: The Playground - No more Covid Games Please.

    (4) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

  • But there are many people posting here who are petty and vindictive on a regular basis. And yet they remain.

    If you would care to make an official complaint about anyone using the ban-hammer in every post box I and the team will consider the matter. Beyond broad agreement that LENR is real we try to be non-partisan and fair as well as always civil. BUT you must recognise that in an Agora like this there will always be a few drunks up the back of the crowd heckling.

  • If you would care to make an official complaint about anyone using the ban-hammer in every post box I and the team will consider the matter. Beyond broad agreement that LENR is real we try to be non-partisan and fair as well as always civil. BUT you must recognise that in an Agora like this there will always be a few drunks up the back of the crowd heckling.

    I do not want anyone banned. I am pointing out the partisan and unfair nature of what you are saying. You said that if Ascoli and THH were petty and vindictive "They would already be history". But when others are petty and vindictive you are tolerant and understanding. That is a different standard. That is unfair. Why the difference?


    The difference is that you perceive A and THH as belonging to the wrong party, the 'never LENR' party.


    But that is a crock, the party they belong to is the 'I sincerely want to get at the truth' party.

  • Just tell us all who you think they are privately or publicly. I must point out that nobody but you has mentioned banning anybody. We would like to know who you consider to be 'petty and mean' so we can investigate.


    As far as 'the wrong party' goes, I refer you to the title of this forum, would anywhere else encourage and create threads for dissenters?


    It only wears thin when they won't accept they are on shaky ground, and won't even consider they might be making accusations based on thin evidence.


    We are in fact very tolerant of dissenting views, and I personally rarely take a stand on any issue beyond incivility or the denigration of experimenters unable or unwilling to defend their work in this space.

  • If either of them ends up leaving this site it will say much more about the blinkered nature of the LENR community than about them.

    If it comes to that I would strongly disagree. Contentious debates such as this, the Mizuno bucket, and George's dancing gamma's have been going on here for years, proving we are not against input from skeptics. That said, there does come a point where we have to accept when a certain issue such as this has reached an impasse, and allowing it to go further will not resolve things, but instead create dissension...as is happening.

  • But that is a crock, the party they belong to is the 'I sincerely want to get at the truth' party.

    With all due respect, I would not put Ascoli in that party. THH..yes. You...yes. Ascoli...no. IMO, he is interested in one thing...Foamgate. Not the latest good news coming from the ICCF24, or Assisi. Not at all interested in sharing our excitement that we may finally be near the goal line after all these years.


    He is a man on a mission, and that mission seems to be to find whatever weakness in the science he can and use it to shame and discredit the entire field. With the boil-off, he believes he has found the instrument to accomplish that goal.


    He may be right, and it was an honest error, but if so, that was only a tiny part of the FP's story...as many have pointed out. Time IMO, to move on.

  • P&F were two of the world most famous electro-chemistry experts. Pons wrote standard student books and so did Fleischmann.



    Here we have two clowns/ignorant(s) that barely did read any of stuff they fight. Like teenager their statements are based only on a Youtube video that is a copy of a copy of... I generally never comment Youtube videos except lectures.


    The experiment of P&F is described in all details in about 10 different papers, that I recommend for all CF beginners. The calorimetry cell P&F used, has been designed to be 99.9% accurate. 5 highly accurately calibrated (to 0.01C) thermocouple did measure the temperature over the full cell that is of Dewar style. So heat after death (empty cell) has been recorded by 5 different TC's as hot air could only move upwards.


    So please feel free to continue enjoying the teenager fantasy of a Russian (ITER like fusion) troll and the comments of a beer bubble fan claiming to work at kings college.

  • I must point out that nobody but you has mentioned banning anybody.

    You brought it up. Didn't you? What else did it mean when you said that Ascoli and THH "would already be history" if they were petty or dismissive?


    Just tell us all who you think they are privately or publicly. ... We would like to know who you consider to be 'petty and mean' so we can investigate.

    Well ... Wyttenbach, of course. See a recent post of his just above this one. Or see a selection of his posts on almost any day You know this is true. But I am not arguing that he should be banned.

  • With all due respect, I would not put Ascoli in that party.

    I would. You impute motives I don't think he has. In particular, I don't think that he has particularly set out find whatever weakness he can to shame and discredit the entire field. I think that he has, indeed, found what he regards as a weakness. And having done so I think he wants to set straight a record that that he sees as both flawed and held to be a core claim. That is certainly what he says. And that is how he acts. I think that what you are seeing is intellectual integrity, not some dark scheme to destroy a field come what may.

  • I have no tolerance of some of the public accounts of that relationship which do not consider the key confounders in Miles's protocol


    (1) too much He4 - and equipment is considered leaky and changed

    (2) too little He4 (not clear whether an experiment with low He4 would be changes due to obvious equipment failure - e.g. bad cathode etc)

    (3) correlation with time. The results as presented do not compare He4 vs excess enthalpy for the same experimental time. Obviously time correlates linearly with both He4 from leaks, and enthalpy.

    (4) methodology - taking many results post-hoc and filtering them is problematic and it is difficult to be sure the filtering (for example as above) does not subtly cause the relationship.

    Every statement here is incorrect. Obviously, you have not read anything about Miles, or you did not understand what you read. All of these issues are addressed in his papers. For that matter, they were addressed by me, in my review of his papers. Obviously, you will not read my review or any of the papers, but perhaps others here would like to see how these issues were addressed. My review:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf


    There are a number of papers by Miles. Here is the most comprehensive one:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf


    For others, go to the library (https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081) and under "All Authors" enter Miles. You can also search for "helium" in the "Search All" category. This searches through titles, keywords and the abstracts for all papers. It finds 204 papers, not all of them on file at LENR-CANR.org.


    That's it for me. I will not respond to THH about Miles or McKubre. I think I have done enough, writing a paper and indexing the library. THH can use the library search features . . . but of course he will not. He will keep repeating these assertions indefinitely, hoping that readers will think he is right because no one responds.

  • With all due respect, I would not put Ascoli in that party. THH..yes. You...yes. Ascoli...no. IMO, he is interested in one thing...Foamgate. Not the latest good news coming from the ICCF24, or Assisi. Not at all interested in sharing our excitement that we may finally be near the goal line after all these years.

    Since 2011, I've been interested in many events and protagonists of the CF/LENR history. As you know, I've started commenting on the Ecat, then Celani, the MFMP experiments, then Takahashi, Mizuno and some other Japanese researchers.


    Eventually, four years ago, I arrived at the beginning of the history, at F&P, the most important protagonists of the field. At that time, I have raised the same objections, I'm discussing now on this thread and I got the same reactions. At best, nobody has entered in the merit of my objections, with the only exception of Robert Horst (1). For years, people has invited me to look at other F&P's documents or at other researcher's claims, trying to divert the attention from the F&P's Simplicity Paper.


    You are doing the same now, by complaining I'm not interested in the latest news from ICCF24, or Assisi. What should I say about them? Why should I discuss about any other LENR claim or experiment, when it is impossible to discuss on the evidence of the only experiment for which we have the original images, the same which have been used by the experimenters to derive their claims?


    The availability of the "1992 boil off" videos allows everyone here to be in the same conditions. There is no more the privilege to say "I know something you don't" or "the experimenter knew something we don't". The images rule.


    The "foam issue" is a test to understand if LF is scientific forum or only a fan-club. This is the reason why it has the priority in my present interest on LENR.


    Quote

    He is a man on a mission, and that mission seems to be to find whatever weakness in the science he can and use it to shame and discredit the entire field. With the boil-off, he believes he has found the instrument to accomplish that goal.

    My intent (mission is too bombastic) is simply to search, understand and proclaim the truth, as it is normal in a scientific context. I've always looked for a sincere and constructive confrontation with others in order to avoid making mistakes myself.


    Quote

    He may be right, and it was an honest error, but if so, that was only a tiny part of the FP's story...as many have pointed out.

    Why "may be right"? We have the images, the same images used by F&P to deduce their claims. We can arrive at a conclusion. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong. How is it possible that you are not interested to know if F&P were actually right or wrong in writing their final claims in the Simplicity Paper?


    And how can you say that this experiment is only tiny part of the F&P's story?


    An important phenomenon such as the alleged HAD derives from the claimed results of the "1992 boil off" experiment.


    Footages from the related lab video have been included in a popular program such as "Good Morning America" in 1994 and in the documentary "Fire From Water" in 1998.


    The Simplicity Paper was the first in the list of the papers selected by McKubre et al. to be submitted to DoE in 2004, when they were asked to provide the best evidence on LENR reality.


    Is all this above just a tiny part of the story?


    (1) RE: FP's experiments discussion

  • I don't think that he has particularly set out find whatever weakness he can to shame and discredit the entire field.

    I do not know if he set out to do this, but he keeps saying that because he found an mistake in this experiment, the entire field is discredited. Even assuming for the sake of argument the boil-off experiment was wrong, the idea that it magically discredits all other experiments make no sense because:


    1. No one else used boil-off calorimetry except Lonchampt, and he confirmed the result.

    2. A mistake by Prof. A does not mean Prof. B's work is wrong. Especially because no one else used this method, you have to find a different error in B's work.

    3. For that matter, F&P used other forms of calorimetry during this same experiment! Ascoli has never addressed the other two methods they used.


    What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits.



    I would not ban him or anyone else. I see no reason to do that. I would only ban people who make threats or try to sell fake products, or something like that. No one here has ever done that as far as I know.